Why didn't the Titanic's lookouts see the Californian?


Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,585
1,361
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
Hi Jim

I expect Stone and Gibson did not see Carpathia’s rockets for the reasons I set out in my previous post. They weren’t looking in the right place, they forgot or were distracted by something else. Or, maybe they didn’t know what the rockets meant. After all, Stone saw rockets hours earlier and couldn’t fathom what they were.

Just because someone did not see something doesn’t mean it wasn’t there.

Just in case you think I am being dismissive or irrational, here’s an example. In lifeboat 1, Symons categorically saw Titanic break in two. In the same lifeboat, Horswill did not see Titanic break in two. In the same lifeboat, Pusey saw the sinking but not clearly (maybe he needed a pair of spectacles!).

Prior to that, Boxhall sees white, red and green lights of a vessel. Standing next to him, Rowe only sees a white light.

Furthermore, as this is also a subject of discussion on this thread, as you would presumably agree with Symon’s evidence on the break up, that wouldn’t mean that you would discount the entirety of Horswill and Pusey’s evidence.
Paul...read the evidence,.
Both men focused binoculars on the spot where they saw the flash of Carpathia's signals. On all normal ships, as any deck officer will tell you, that is an automatic reaction to a sighting such as was seen. Distress signals to not simply flash and go out. If they did, they would be as useful as a chocolate fire guard. In real life...and I have seen them...they seem to hang in the sky, and "melt"! slowly downward before finally extinguishing. The idea is to be visible to a potential rescuer for as long as possible. The parachute signals was an upgrading of the same idea.
I am not making this up. It is not the product of a fertile imagination. It is a fact which no one on this sites can deny...hence the deafening silence to my request for an answer.

Stone couldn't fathom out what he was seeing because it did not sound alarm bells in his head - not because he did not know what distress signals were supposed to look like. A Distress signal is designed to do what didn't happen. How many ships do you think saw Carpathia's distress signals and thought she was in distress?

As for what Boxhall saw v. what Rowe saw...Boxhall was using binoculars. He perfectly described an approaching vessel a vessel which came on a steady course, then slowed down when it met the ice and turned this way and that before turning away to starboard and showing a stern light. Hence the green and red being seen together.
QM Rowe simply did what he was told and that would most certainly not have been standing beside Boxhall and Captain Smith admiring the view. In any case, the vessel on the bow was seen at the time the second distress signal was first transmitted.

The red light was seen with the naked eye at least 20 minutes after the second distress signal was transmitted
The first sighting was of a white light fine on the bow, However, when the red light was seen, the vessel showing it was no more than 5 miles away. About that same time, QM Rowe arrived on the bridge. How the heck did he see a white light half a point on the port bow before then?
For your information and that of others... anyone standing on the same side of Titanic's bridge when the morse light was being used would have had their night vision seriously impaired. Only a person under cover or on the opposite bridge wing with binoculars would have been able to clearly keep the approaching vessel under observation.
 
Mar 22, 2003
6,481
1,746
383
Chicago, IL, USA
www.titanicology.com
No, Sam, there is absolutely no reason for us to doubt that Gibson thought he saw a flash on the nearby vessel's deck. After all, he was there, we were not.
Good. We agree on something. Gibson saw the flash as the signal left the deck, saw the faint streak as the shell was propelled skyward, and then saw the burst into white stars that followed.
If that came from a vessel 23 miles away, which you claim was the distance between Californian and Titanic, then what Gibson saw could not have come from Titanic if she was 23 miles away.


As far as you question goes, lets correct a few things. Stone and Gibson were not on deck 3 hours after 1:20am. They were on deck 2 hours later, at 3:20am when Carpathia was firing rockets. And what they saw can be show by slightly modifying your picture which shows a very bright sky which didn't exist. So below is a picture split into two pictures. The one on top is for 1:20am and the one below for 3:20am which came from a vessel that was about 10-11 miles beyond where the first one was 2 hours previous.

1618252217490.png
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,585
1,361
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
Good. We agree on something. Gibson saw the flash as the signal left the deck, saw the faint streak as the shell was propelled skyward, and then saw the burst into white stars that followed.
If that came from a vessel 23 miles away, which you claim was the distance between Californian and Titanic, then what Gibson saw could not have come from Titanic if she was 23 miles away.


As far as you question goes, lets correct a few things. Stone and Gibson were not on deck 3 hours after 1:20am. They were on deck 2 hours later, at 3:20am when Carpathia was firing rockets. And what they saw can be show by slightly modifying your picture which shows a very bright sky which didn't exist. So below is a picture split into two pictures. The one on top is for 1:20am and the one below for 3:20am which came from a vessel that was about 10-11 miles beyond where the first one was 2 hours previous.

View attachment 76310
There you go Sam, picking 'nits' again. In fact, the interval between the first flash first time and the first flash second time was 2 hours 35 minutes. But it's not the times but the flashes we are concerned about.
Are you kidding? Either that or you have never seen a flash on the horizon. What you illustrate is simply a rocket burst a little above the horizon. The term used by both witnesses was ON the horizon. Or are you quoting from a different source of evidence?
Both were using binoculars and both said their observation was "right on the horizon". Obviously, you have never seen what was being described. Allow me to "enlighten" you.
edification.jpg

But if you don't like that, then explain why, at 14 miles, they didn't see Carpathia's navigation lights., yet according to you, they saw Titanic's navigation lights when they must have been more than 20 miles away.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,585
1,361
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
There you go Sam, picking 'nits' again. In fact, the interval between the first flash first time and the first flash second time was 2 hours 35 minutes. But it's not the times but the flashes we are concerned about.
Are you kidding? Either that or you have never seen a flash on the horizon. What you illustrate is simply a rocket burst a little above the horizon. The term used by both witnesses was ON the horizon. Or are you quoting from a different source of evidence?
Both were using binoculars and both said their observation was "right on the horizon". Obviously, you have never seen what was being described. Allow me to "enlighten" you.
View attachment 76312
But if you don't like that, then explain why, at 14 miles, they didn't see Carpathia's navigation lights., yet according to you, they saw Titanic's navigation lights when they must have been more than 20 miles away.
PS: An object seen right on the horizon at that time... given the physical conditions... would in fact be 28.31 minutes of arc below the horizon of an observer with a height of eye of 55 feet above sea level. It follows that an object seen half a degree of arc above the same observer's horizon, would, in fact be right on it.
 

Cam Houseman

Member
Jul 14, 2020
2,134
485
158
16
Maryland, USA
Survivors sa
There you go Sam, picking 'nits' again. In fact, the interval between the first flash first time and the first flash second time was 2 hours 35 minutes. But it's not the times but the flashes we are concerned about.
Are you kidding? Either that or you have never seen a flash on the horizon. What you illustrate is simply a rocket burst a little above the horizon. The term used by both witnesses was ON the horizon. Or are you quoting from a different source of evidence?
Both were using binoculars and both said their observation was "right on the horizon". Obviously, you have never seen what was being described. Allow me to "enlighten" you.
View attachment 76312
But if you don't like that, then explain why, at 14 miles, they didn't see Carpathia's navigation lights., yet according to you, they saw Titanic's navigation lights when they must have been more than 20 miles away.
Survivors saw the running lights of the Carpathia as she approached, right? (I.e Lifeboat 2 when they were the first to be picked up)?
 
Mar 22, 2003
6,481
1,746
383
Chicago, IL, USA
www.titanicology.com
Obviously, you have never seen what was being described. Allow me to "enlighten" you.
I have had enough of your so called enlightenment. As usual, you interpret things the way you want to. My interpretation of what Gibson said is pretty straight forward. BI 7597 makes it pretty clear what he saw once he got the glasses on them.

7596. Could you see when you saw this flash at all how far away you thought it was? - It was right on the horizon.
7597. What sort of a light was it? You called it a rocket? Was it a flash; did you see it go up into the sky? - Yes.
7598. What colour was it? - White.

And guess what? About 20 minutes later, according to what Stone tells Stewart, Stone thinks he see's a light to the southward.

8886. Did you ask him whether he had seen anything else? - [Stewart] He [Stone] said he thought there was a light to southward about 20 minutes to 4.

Which by around 4 o'clock becomes two masthead lights that Stewart picked up and pointed them out to Stone who acted like he saw that vessel for the very first time. Now what vessel could that be to the southward at that time and little abaft the beam? Oh, must that not be mystery vessel Y, the one that fired rockets right on the horizon a little distance apart in the SSW around 3:20?
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,585
1,361
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
I have had enough of your so called enlightenment. As usual, you interpret things the way you want to. My interpretation of what Gibson said is pretty straight forward. BI 7597 makes it pretty clear what he saw once he got the glasses on them.

7596. Could you see when you saw this flash at all how far away you thought it was? - It was right on the horizon.
7597. What sort of a light was it? You called it a rocket? Was it a flash; did you see it go up into the sky? - Yes.
7598. What colour was it? - White.

And guess what? About 20 minutes later, according to what Stone tells Stewart, Stone thinks he see's a light to the southward.

8886. Did you ask him whether he had seen anything else? - [Stewart] He [Stone] said he thought there was a light to southward about 20 minutes to 4.

Which by around 4 o'clock becomes two masthead lights that Stewart picked up and pointed them out to Stone who acted like he saw that vessel for the very first time. Now what vessel could that be to the southward at that time and little abaft the beam? Oh, must that not be mystery vessel Y, the one that fired rockets right on the horizon a little distance apart in the SSW around 3:20?
Now, now, Sam, keep your hair on. :D Let's keep this discussion in perspective.
First of all, my interpretation of marine phenomenon and the actions of sailormen is not "so-called" it is more likely to be factual since I am the one who has actually seen and been involved with such things on many occasions.
Consequently, the word "Interpretation" should not be confused with the expression "educated guess".
There is very little "pretty clear" about Gibson's evidence relative to the last hour of his Watch.
For instance: how can a rocket be "right on the horizon" and go "right up in the air"? That is a contradiction in terms. In fact, your bold emphasis also contradicts your own argument.
The word "rocket" in that exchange is used by the questioner and the witness but the description of what was seen was a "flash".
No doubt the following will be dismissed out of hand, but one must try.
The first flash in the firing sequence of a signal is on the deck. Then there is a second flash at maximum trajectory... thereafter, and for some time, the signal gives off a steady light from multiple - closely concentrated sources. Gibson described seeing a flash which he called a rocket. You like his evidence during this part of his interrogation, so consider the following:

In their reports to Lord on April 18, Gibson wrote:
"At about 3:20 looking over the weather cloth, I observed a rocket about two points before the beam (Port), which I reported to the Second Officer. About three minutes later I saw another rocket right abeam which was followed later by another one about two points before the beam."
Whereas Stone wrote:
" We saw nothing further until about 3:20 when we thought we observed two faint lights in the sky about S.S.W. and a little distance apart."


Stone saw lights in the sky at 20 minutes to 4, not a ship's masthead lights. Gibson referred to them as "rockets" and "flashes".
However, Gibson also said:
"7574. What was it? A: - About 3. 40 the Second Officer whistled down to the Captain again.
7575. Twenty minutes to four? A: - Yes.
7576. Did you see him doing it? A: - Yes.
7577. Did you hear what he said? A: - No.
7578. Did anything happen after that? A: - Yes.
7579. What? A: - I saw three more rockets, Sir.


So if I am reading this correctly, Gibson saw three flashes at 3- 20 am and 40 minutes later, at 4-40 am he saw 3 rockets.

Don't speculate, Sam -then select the evidence you like - consider all of it.
Gibson's recollections do not make sense.
For a ship with and air-shape such as the C to swing 4 points...45 degrees...22.5 degrees to port then back another 22.5 degrees in 3 minutes seems a bit far fetched to say the least.
A stopped ship tends to lie athwart the wind, The point of influence of wind moves depending on the profile of the ship presented to the wind. On a ship with midship accommodation, the PI will be fairly close to the CG i.e. at the mid-length point. All which means that C would not have been swinging back and forth at such a rate. (Of course you know that).
What you are unable to deny is the fact that both men used the expression "right on the horizon" and I have previously pointed out to you the true meaning of that expression when taking into consideration the presence of abnormal refraction. A fact which once again, you ignored.
Apart from the foregoing- am I correct in suggesting that you have already argued with another member that the vessel lights seen at 4 am were probably those of the Mount Temple? :D
 
Mar 22, 2003
6,481
1,746
383
Chicago, IL, USA
www.titanicology.com
Apart from the foregoing- am I correct in suggesting that you have already argued with another member that the vessel lights seen at 4 am were probably those of the Mount Temple? :D
No, I believe that the lights seen at 4am were from the Carpathia which had, or was about to, pick up lifeboat #2. and the vessel seen at 5am was Mount Temple which first had arrived on the scene from the SW around 4:30. According to Stewart and Stone, the lights at 4am were seen to the southward and a little abaft the beam. According to Lord, the vessel seen at around 5am, which he saw and had a yellow funnel, was to the SW about 8 miles off. One was on the eastern side of the ice and the other on the western side of the ice.

First of all, my interpretation of marine phenomenon and the actions of sailormen is not "so-called" it is more likely to be factual since I am the one who has actually seen and been involved with such things on many occasions.
Sorry, but you are certainly entitled to your own opinions, but not your own set of facts.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,585
1,361
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
No, I believe that the lights seen at 4am were from the Carpathia which had, or was about to, pick up lifeboat #2. and the vessel seen at 5am was Mount Temple which first had arrived on the scene from the SW around 4:30. According to Stewart and Stone, the lights at 4am were seen to the southward and a little abaft the beam. According to Lord, the vessel seen at around 5am, which he saw and had a yellow funnel, was to the SW about 8 miles off. One was on the eastern side of the ice and the other on the western side of the ice.


Sorry, but you are certainly entitled to your own opinions, but not your own set of facts.
OK! Sam. Let's try it another way, using evidence that has been there since "the year dot".

IF the lights seen by Stewart at 4 am were those of the Carpathia and as we know, dawn was breaking, then please explain the following:

Stewart described the vessel to the southward of Californian as having:
"8598- ...two white masthead lights and a few lights amidships.
and at daylight
8851. .... - A four-masted steamer with one funnel
."

IF, as you claim that vessel was Carpathia, then why, since the vessel's lights were unmistakable and in daylight, her shape and masts were clearly visible, did not those on Carpathia have the same night and day view of Californian?

Why, at daylight - did those on Carpathia not see three vessels to the northward instead of only two?
Why didn't Stewart and Lord see three or even 2 instead of just one to the southward at daylight?
That which is sauce for the goose, is likewise, sauce for the gander is it not?

On the subject of lights (which this is about) -
Please explain how it was possible for a witness to see a red sidelight with the naked eye at around 1 am from the boat deck of Titanic, or, in fact, from any position if the vessel showing it was the Californian and she was 14 miles away.

First time I've heard of facts coming in "sets", Sam. However, facts are facts, no more - no less. Entitlement to them is only regulated in non-Democratic organizations. I'm sure you'll agree.
However, try not to mix them with suppositions or guesswork.
 
Mar 22, 2003
6,481
1,746
383
Chicago, IL, USA
www.titanicology.com
Let's define dawn breaking. You can look this up yourself, but the data I found from the US Naval observatory site were the following times for the location of the wreck site on April 15, 1912.

For 41°43'N 49°57'W (Titanic wreck site)
04/15/1912
Astronomical Twilight 07:00 GMT = 3:50 Californian time
Nautical Twilight 07:37 GMT = 04:27 Californian time
Moon rise 07:55 GMT = 04:45 Californian time
Civil Twilight 08:11 GMT = 05:01 Californian time
Sun rise 08:40 GMT = 05:30 Californian time

At 4am only lights could be seen. Carpathia was not just sitting there after about 4:30, but according to Rostron, started to dodge about starting to pick up other boats. It wasn't always presenting a broadside view. Neither was Californian if she continued to swing toward the north, shutting in her most of her nav lights except for her dimmer, lower-lying stern light. It was Rostron who noticed those two vessels around 5 o'clock that were 7 to 8 miles away from him. His other officers claimed they saw what turned out to be Californian around 6am, judging her to be around 10 miles to the north at that time. Remember also that the seascape was dotted with a lot of bergs of all sizes which became visible in daylight, including those embedded within the field of pack ice. Things are more easily spotted when they are moving.

People only notice what they noticed. Take Stone for example. Until Stewart pointed out to him the lights of this steamer to their southward at 4am, Stone never noticed it before. And speaking of Stewart, his "few lights amidships" when being questioned at the inquiry where originally described as "a lot of lights amidships" in his deposition taken before he testified, which he was asked to read from at the inquiry.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,585
1,361
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
Let's define dawn breaking. You can look this up yourself, but the data I found from the US Naval observatory site were the following times for the location of the wreck site on April 15, 1912.

For 41°43'N 49°57'W (Titanic wreck site)
04/15/1912
Astronomical Twilight 07:00 GMT = 3:50 Californian time
Nautical Twilight 07:37 GMT = 04:27 Californian time
Moon rise 07:55 GMT = 04:45 Californian time
Civil Twilight 08:11 GMT = 05:01 Californian time
Sun rise 08:40 GMT = 05:30 Californian time

At 4am only lights could be seen. Carpathia was not just sitting there after about 4:30, but according to Rostron, started to dodge about starting to pick up other boats. It wasn't always presenting a broadside view. Neither was Californian if she continued to swing toward the north, shutting in her most of her nav lights except for her dimmer, lower-lying stern light. It was Rostron who noticed those two vessels around 5 o'clock that were 7 to 8 miles away from him. His other officers claimed they saw what turned out to be Californian around 6am, judging her to be around 10 miles to the north at that time. Remember also that the seascape was dotted with a lot of bergs of all sizes which became visible in daylight, including those embedded within the field of pack ice. Things are more easily spotted when they are moving.

People only notice what they noticed. Take Stone for example. Until Stewart pointed out to him the lights of this steamer to their southward at 4am, Stone never noticed it before. And speaking of Stewart, his "few lights amidships" when being questioned at the inquiry where originally described as "a lot of lights amidships" in his deposition taken before he testified, which he was asked to read from at the inquiry.
We don't need the US Naval Observatory input. You could have saved yourself the effort because as Gibson and Rostron tell us:
"7594. (The Solicitor-General.) Yes, my Lord, Roman candles. (To the Witness.) If it was twenty minutes to four it was not very far off the beginning of dawn, was it?
- No, dawn was just breaking.
7595. Had it got any lighter? A: Yes.

And from Rostron:
"25473. When the boat
[No.2]was alongside of me daylight broke,"
There was not enough light to see all the boats at that time, but by 5 o'clock, Rostron could see all the survivors and he would also have seen boats heading straight for him. That was also the time that both captains Lord of the Californian and Moore of the Mount Temple got ready to get underway again. For the hour up until then, Carpathia was presenting a broad aspect to the Californian and vice-versa.
If Rostron did any "dodging about" he would have done it at dead slow speed and always would have stopped beam-on to the wind.

Rostron saw Californian at 8 pm and positively identified her shortly thereafter. When first seen, she was about 6 miles away bearing WSW True.
We know Californian got underway again at 6 am. We also know that for the two hours between 6 am and 8 am, she ran slow speed for 20 minutes and the remainder of the time - 1 hour 40 minutes - at Full maximum speed. Allowing for build-up, she would have covered a distance of about 18 miles at full speed. During the entire 2 hours and for the hour before it, she would have been belching black smoke and highly visible. No way, was Californian 10 miles to the northward. In any case, you believe she was to the northwest of the location. If so, then at a rough guess, she would have been about 12 miles to the SW of Carpathia at 8 pm


Rostron said he was dodging about but he also said:
"25481. ...- I cannot say which were the boats we took up. I took them as they came along,"
In any case, a good seaman would have provided a lee for the approaching boats and consequently, since the wind was from the northward, would have been lying at right angles to it and presenting a beam-on view to observers to the northward. No end-on scenarios.
By the same token, Californian was doing likewise. and would have lain beam-on to the same wind.
Stone said the vessel to the south was heading the same way as Californian - so it was not Mount Temple.
Both he and Stewart saw their vessel to the south so it could never have been Carpathia since you claim she would have been SE at that time... between 4 and 6 points abaft the port beam.
 
Mar 22, 2003
6,481
1,746
383
Chicago, IL, USA
www.titanicology.com
Both he and Stewart saw their vessel to the south so it could never have been Carpathia since you claim she would have been SE at that time..
You must be right. It must have been the mystery vessel that had fired those rockets at 3:20am. You know, the ones that Stone said he saw to the SSW. Hmm? That steamer must have come through the ice field from west to east to get to the south of them by 4am, and then turn around to face westward so it pointed in the same direction that Californian was at that time. OK, mystery solved.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,585
1,361
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
You must be right. It must have been the mystery vessel that had fired those rockets at 3:20am. You know, the ones that Stone said he saw to the SSW. Hmm? That steamer must have come through the ice field from west to east to get to the south of them by 4am, and then turn around to face westward so it pointed in the same direction that Californian was at that time. OK, mystery solved.
No, Sam. Using Brad's "razor" (and if it was on the same side of the ice Barrier and stopped against i) it was more than likely the vessel seen earlier by Rostron and his Officers. Incidentally, why do you ignore the obvious since it seems to support your NW trending ice barrier? (even although those incompetent fools who actually saw it and sailed up and down it, said it was trending north- South.):rolleyes:
And of course, I'm right. Why has it taken you so long to admit it? :D :D :D :D :D
 
Mar 22, 2003
6,481
1,746
383
Chicago, IL, USA
www.titanicology.com
No, Sam. Using Brad's "razor" (and if it was on the same side of the ice Barrier and stopped against i) it was more than likely the vessel seen earlier by Rostron and his Officers.
OK, then the rockets seen at 3:20am in the SSW came from some other mysterious vessel. Maybe it was Lord's yellow funneled boat seen around 5am to the SW about 8 miles off?
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,585
1,361
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
OK, then the rockets seen at 3:20am in the SSW came from some other mysterious vessel. Maybe it was Lord's yellow funneled boat seen around 5am to the SW about 8 miles off?
I'll answer that in the belief that you are being serious.
OK, then the rockets seen at 3:20am in the SSW came from some other mysterious vessel. Maybe it was Lord's yellow funneled boat seen around 5am to the SW about 8 miles off?

Again, read the evidence without prejudice -try and fill the man's sea boots.

Gibson told Stone that he saw a signal on the horizon at 3-20 am.. it was about 2 points before the beam then on the beam. No one took a compass bearing of it...just a relative one.
Stone wrote:
" we were heading about W.N.W. Mr. Stewart then took over the Watch."
If, as Stone said, Californian was heading WNW at 4 am, and swinging right at about a degree a minute until the wind rose appreciably after 3-30 am, then she would have been heading about W x S at 3-20 am and her beam would have been pointing roughly SSE.
What was it Stone wrote? Ah yes!
" We saw nothing further until about 3:20 when we thought we observed two faint lights in the sky about S.S.W. and a little distance apart."
So where did the SSW come from? What did Stone tell Stewart? Ah yes!!
"I gave him a full report of what I had seen and my reports and replies from you, and pointed out where I thought I had observed these faint lights at 3:20."
Note that he pointed out where he saw the lights relative to the ship's bow and he saw them abeam. Since the bow was heading WNW at that time, beam was pointing SSW.
I suggest to you that Stone worked out his bearings in retrospect and simply forgot that his ship was still swinging right after 3-30 am.

I didn't make the foregoing up Sam nor did I jump to conclusions. I simply asked myself how a man of Stone's experience, or any officer so qualified, could have arrived at his bearings. More to the point, it is inconceivable that Stone made up an elaborate story- one which bore no relationship to Titanic at the time it was written.
Show me a man who has never made a mistake, and I'll show you a liar.
 

Julian Atkins

Member
Sep 23, 2017
1,387
673
188
South Wales UK
Now, now, Sam, keep your hair on. :D Let's keep this discussion in perspective.
First of all, my interpretation of marine phenomenon and the actions of sailormen is not "so-called" it is more likely to be factual since I am the one who has actually seen and been involved with such things on many occasions.
Consequently, the word "Interpretation" should not be confused with the expression "educated guess".
There is very little "pretty clear" about Gibson's evidence relative to the last hour of his Watch.
For instance: how can a rocket be "right on the horizon" and go "right up in the air"? That is a contradiction in terms. In fact, your bold emphasis also contradicts your own argument.
The word "rocket" in that exchange is used by the questioner and the witness but the description of what was seen was a "flash".
No doubt the following will be dismissed out of hand, but one must try.
The first flash in the firing sequence of a signal is on the deck. Then there is a second flash at maximum trajectory... thereafter, and for some time, the signal gives off a steady light from multiple - closely concentrated sources. Gibson described seeing a flash which he called a rocket. You like his evidence during this part of his interrogation, so consider the following:

In their reports to Lord on April 18, Gibson wrote:
"At about 3:20 looking over the weather cloth, I observed a rocket about two points before the beam (Port), which I reported to the Second Officer. About three minutes later I saw another rocket right abeam which was followed later by another one about two points before the beam."
Whereas Stone wrote:
" We saw nothing further until about 3:20 when we thought we observed two faint lights in the sky about S.S.W. and a little distance apart."


Stone saw lights in the sky at 20 minutes to 4, not a ship's masthead lights. Gibson referred to them as "rockets" and "flashes".
However, Gibson also said:
"7574. What was it? A: - About 3. 40 the Second Officer whistled down to the Captain again.
7575. Twenty minutes to four? A: - Yes.
7576. Did you see him doing it? A: - Yes.
7577. Did you hear what he said? A: - No.
7578. Did anything happen after that? A: - Yes.
7579. What? A: - I saw three more rockets, Sir.


So if I am reading this correctly, Gibson saw three flashes at 3- 20 am and 40 minutes later, at 4-40 am he saw 3 rockets.

Don't speculate, Sam -then select the evidence you like - consider all of it.
Gibson's recollections do not make sense.
For a ship with and air-shape such as the C to swing 4 points...45 degrees...22.5 degrees to port then back another 22.5 degrees in 3 minutes seems a bit far fetched to say the least.
A stopped ship tends to lie athwart the wind, The point of influence of wind moves depending on the profile of the ship presented to the wind. On a ship with midship accommodation, the PI will be fairly close to the CG i.e. at the mid-length point. All which means that C would not have been swinging back and forth at such a rate. (Of course you know that).
What you are unable to deny is the fact that both men used the expression "right on the horizon" and I have previously pointed out to you the true meaning of that expression when taking into consideration the presence of abnormal refraction. A fact which once again, you ignored.
Apart from the foregoing- am I correct in suggesting that you have already argued with another member that the vessel lights seen at 4 am were probably those of the Mount Temple? :D

Jim,

I think you are being unduly provocative here in your above post.

You have selectively homed in on bits of the British Inquiry testimony later on of Gibson when I consider he was suffering from witness fatigue that I have previously mentioned many times.

I've seen this happen many times in Court.

Had Captain Lord disclosed to the British Inquiry the 18th April statements of Stone and Gibson we might have had a quite different set of testimonies from both.

Those statements are the earliest contemporaneous accounts.

It does seem to me to be somewhat peculiar to hone in on discrepancies in Gibson's testimony towards the end of his British Inquiry testimony and when the British Inquiry in any event attached little weight to the Carpathia firing off distress rockets in any event.

(Some of us can appreciate the import and significance of this testimony, although Gibson made some quite explainable errors over the timings. That is quite understandable in my opinion and experience of such matters in Court).

Cheers,

Julian
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Mar 22, 2003
6,481
1,746
383
Chicago, IL, USA
www.titanicology.com
More to the point, it is inconceivable that Stone made up an elaborate story- one which bore no relationship to Titanic at the time it was written.
Yes, it is quite an elaborate story that Stone came up with.
-Rockets going only as high as 1/2 the masthead light,
-the bearing of these low-lying rockets following the bearing of the steamer as it steamed away fast to the SW,
-the changing of bearings starting with the 2nd rocket, yet (via Gibson) the red nav light was seen until after the 7th rocket,
-saying that he told Lord about seeing rockets coming after he saw the 5th one, yet telling Gibson it was after the 2nd rocket when he informed Lord.
I could go on, but unless you have something really new to add, I see no reason to continue since all of this has been talked about before.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,585
1,361
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
Jim,

I think you are being unduly provocative here in your above post.

You have selectively homed in on bits of the British Inquiry testimony later on of Gibson when I consider he was suffering from witness fatigue that I have previously mentioned many times.

I've seen this happen many times in Court.

Had Captain Lord disclosed to the British Inquiry the 18th April statements of Stone and Gibson we might have had a quite different set of testimonies from both.

Those statements are the earliest contemporaneous accounts.

It does seem to me to be somewhat peculiar to hone in on discrepancies in Gibson's testimony towards the end of his British Inquiry testimony and when the British Inquiry in any event attached little weight to the Carpathia firing off distress rockets in any event.

(Some of us can appreciate the import and significance of this testimony, although Gibson made some quite explainable errors over the timings. That is quite understandable in my opinion and experience of such matters in Court).

Cheers,

Julian
You are spot-on, Julian.

This thread is asking a specific question. In developing an answer, I requested a strait-forward answer to a simple question, which if answered in simple terms, would have, in turn, provided an answer to the said specific question regarding relative visibility. I did not get it.

As a lawyer, you of all people will understand that a convoluted "round-the-houses" answer is
usually indicative of an inability, or unwillingness to provide an answer. If it is unwillingness,then the witness being questioned has a reason for answering in such a way and that reason is for self-protection or the protection of others.

The obvious reason why the "the British Inquiry in any event attached little weight to the Carpathia firing off distress rockets in any event." was because if they had done as I have done, and analised in depth, they would have had to accept Captain Lord's navigation and have had to have looked for another scape-goat.
By the same token all others since then who have bent, twisted, inovated and invented to maintain the status quo would require to swallow their pride and admit error, and we can't have that now, can we?

Do you, as a lawyer, accept the concept of witness fatigue as an excuse for attempting to pervert the course of justice? If so, what a gift to an on-the-ball crooked defendent. :rolleyes: Or do you accept the practice of creating confusion in the mind of a simple, scared , honest young man?
Keep safe.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,585
1,361
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
Yes, it is quite an elaborate story that Stone came up with.
-Rockets going only as high as 1/2 the masthead light,
-the bearing of these low-lying rockets following the bearing of the steamer as it steamed away fast to the SW,
-the changing of bearings starting with the 2nd rocket, yet (via Gibson) the red nav light was seen until after the 7th rocket,
-saying that he told Lord about seeing rockets coming after he saw the 5th one, yet telling Gibson it was after the 2nd rocket when he informed Lord.
I could go on, but unless you have something really new to add, I see no reason to continue since all of this has been talked about before.
Just answer my first question without waffle, Sam... you know the one I mean...the one about the flash, rocket, firework or whatever being right on the observer's horizon.
As I pointed out to Julian, a long-winded round-the -houses, super science or whatever, answer is not necessary and there usually is a reason for it. Since I am a professional, and those describing the event were also professionals, there is no reason for it in this case. So just a simple acknowledgement of the sighting of Carpathia's signals being on the observer's horizon will do.
 

Similar threads

Similar threads